https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827399
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Consider asking upstream for a separate LICENSE file
- I'm conflicted about the location of these scripts:
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/sqm/start-sqm 744
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/sqm/stop-sqm 744
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/sqm/update-available-qdiscs 744
This is not FHS friendly, these should maybe be in bindir or libexec (which is
Fedora specific I believe)? Maybe ask upstream about it.
- That part is fixed in master:
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/layer_cake.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/piece_of_cake.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/simple.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/simplest.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/simplest_tbf.qos 644
/bin/sh
Consider backporting
https://github.com/tohojo/sqm-scripts/commit/63de5cb0d0eab9ef46f3311acd85239e43fc894f
- seems there is some interest in an EPEL7/8 package:
https://github.com/tohojo/sqm-scripts/issues/119
Package is approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "GPL (v2)". 20
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/sqm-scripts/review-sqm-
scripts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[!?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the
